[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

Search:


View post   

>> No.4848122 [View]

>>4848108
>You're totally misconstruing what he's saying.
Actually, my only reasoning for having that paper was that unrelated children's IQ's tend to correlate when they are young, and the correlation drops to zero as they age. I'm going back through my posts trying to find where I said anything more than that with respect to that reference . . . but i digress. I openly disagree with the author regarding this being due to non-shared environment; and thats written somewhere in my notes, but for now unfortunately I'm too tired to keep up my end of the argument. I'm passing the torch at this point. Good day sir, and I do hope on of the other posters keeps up the argument. Signing off.

>> No.4848100 [View]

>>4848070
Also, seeing as I'm at the P section of my bibliography, I think I might add one

Preuss TM 2000 The discovery of cerebral diversity: an unwelcome scientific revolution In D. Falk and K Gibson, evolutionary anatomy of the primate cerebral cortex.

>>4848076
617 comes from the Sibling Interaction and Behaviour Study section on the wikipedia page. It says 617 families participated. Remember, technically the minnesota study wasn't a study at all, it's really just a database of twins reared together and apart for the purposes of other researchers. Some studies used 60 of the twin pairs in the database, some 126, some 617. There really was a lot of studies that came out of that data.

>>4848086
The point actually was that it wasn't environmental, rather than it definitely was genetic. Also, I think it's interesting. Unrelated children in the same environment IQ's correlate. As they age, their IQ's drift apart, to be uncorrelated in adulthood. It suggests that by adulthood, everyone's environment is the same, but in early childhood, before the child has had the opportunity to experience the full gamut of human experience, genetically unrelated children in the same families IQ's will correlate. It means that by adulthood IQ differences will be pretty much genetic across the board, with the caveat that this only applies to the particular sample of children that was tested in the study.

>> No.4848070 [View]

Funnily enough, Plomin in his various studies on the subject indicated that unrelated children reared together have IQ's that DO correlate in childhood, but the correlation drops off as the children age, dropping to zero in adulthood. Given that you're all a pack of sadistic arseholes, and are making me go through my references, i'll pull them up

Plomin, R., & Daniels D 1987. Why are children in the same family so different from one another Behavioural and brain sciences 10 1-60

Plomin R, Defries JC, Fulker DW Nature and Nurture in infancy and early childhood New York: Cambridge university press

Plomin R 1994 Genetics and experience: The interplay between nature and nurture
Thousand Oaks

Plomin R The role of inheritance in behaviour. Science, 248, 183-248

>> No.4848032 [View]

>>4848016
The minnesota adoption study wasn't really a single study. It was mainly a register of twins reared together and apart, so that other researchers could easily assemble a sizable sample size for their studies. The flawed transracial study you mention was only one of the cognitive studies performed on that data.

>> No.4848013 [View]

>>4847994
You think I would write a multi post thesis for the purpose of trolling? This is /sci/, not /b/. Trust me I'm not. I was briefly thinking of posting a photocopy of my degree here to establish my educational background, but decided against it, as it wouldn't prove anything, and, /sci/ or not, this is still 4chan. I studied this stuff extensively as I thought it was a career opportunity, given that I had a background in molecular biology and was biracial so could not be accused of racism. It's why I still have various related references lying around my room.

>> No.4847993 [View]

One more thing, exactly what about the minnesota study do some posters on here take exception to? What don't you like about the methodology?

>> No.4847986 [View]

>>4847974
The map covers genotype not phenotype. It's also the result of some very sophisticated statistical number crunching, however if you have a difficulty with it, I suggest you buy the book, and then take it up with the author, who happens to be anti-racist.

>>4847977
Actually, on the point you seem to take exception to, that your treatment due to skin colour will effect IQ,m I actually missed the point you were making for a post or 2. My own experience with this matter is that it has nothing to do with it, but my evidence is admittedly anecdotal.

>> No.4847972 [View]

>>4847953
You can't expect me to have these studies on hand at all times mate. I'm also extremely tired. Also, ad hominem's such as asshat and "let's try to keep up eh?" don't help. There are a lot of you and I'm a slow typist.

>>4847952
Think I'm about to pass the torch on this one, I'm really to tired to go trolling through my books and on google. Also the study you quote has already been rejected by someone ITT as being methodologically flawed. Interestingly though, I notice that the biracial guys like ourselves tend to be the biggest race realists. I think it has something to do with the fact that we grow up in close proximity with individuals of both race and so the differences are too obvious.

>>4847960
Not samefag I assure you.

>> No.4847938 [View]

>>4847915
However regardless of whether you hit a nerve, I really do believe that being treated a certain way wont effect IQ. I consider the data already posted to be sufficient on this matter though, regarding twins reared together vs those reared apart. I'm assuming twins reared apart to be sufficiently similarly treated and twins reared apart to be sufficiently differently treated to test this hypothesis. I am dimly aware of an experiment that tested the IQ scores of mixed raced adopted children vs non mixed race adopted children where the parents didn't know the child was of mixed race. The theory went that mixed race children would be treated differently and would have a higher expectation to succeed than non mixed race children, should the parents not know. My understanding was the results were null on that point. I do not however have a reference. I am very tired and don't have the energy to got trolling through my references unfortunately.

>>4847926
As for the black skin, wouldn't you think i'm something of an expert on this, seeing as I have it?

>> No.4847915 [View]

>>4847903
It's also only one of the studies I quoted. There are more, but like I said, I don't carry this stuff around with. More to the point however, your problem was that you thought it was anecdotal. It tracked 617 families. Methodologically flawed the study may be, anecdotal it is not.

>Asshat.

Sigh. I apologise, you hit a nerve.

>> No.4847897 [View]

>>4847881
I happen to be non-white. I really detest other coloured people that make this argument. I'm not some fucking victim. The average white can treat me however he sees fit, I'm still smarter than him. Being treated a certain way has nothing to do with your intelligence.

>> No.4847874 [View]

>>4847860
Oh, well actually, I see what you mean here. Your reply to this guy has made it easier on me. Well, I don't know of any experiment that has tested the effects of no education at all on IQ, but I assume that it's kinda like running in the Olympics. As the playing field levelled, and all the nations had access to equal training facilities, the field became more racially homogenous, so east africans tend to take out the marathon, for example. The same should be true of schooling, as populations have equal access to education, for example, with things like desegregation, we should see certain racial groups rise to the top if they differ in core ability. That is what we see, for example with Asian immigrants.

>>4847823
Also, found one of the studies, in reply to your question, see the minnesota twins experiment, which tracked data from 617 families.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Twin_Family_Study#Twins_reared_apart

>> No.4847856 [View]

>>4847840
The quoted experiments were not racial. I'm only discussing IQ at the moment. Although I find it very difficult to believe that IQ would be genetic for a random collection of twins and not for racial groups. That stretching the bounds of credibility.

>> No.4847855 [View]

>>4847823
KK, I did manage to find an old glossary from when I used to look into this shit., but it is extremely brief, and isnt very illuminating. But the names are Bouchard et al. 1990; Plomin and Daniels, 1987; Reiss et al., 2000; Rowe 1994. Unfortunately, whilst I used to carry the papers around, I no longer do, so the bibliography isnt much help.

>> No.4847834 [View]

>>4847823
>Identical twins who were separated at birth aren't exactly a dime a dozen. You also have to look at the twin's own economic positions: were they raised in similar conditions?

My problem with this is that you're deliberately setting up the question to be untestable; adoptive parents are have similar enough environments that it renders the data moot; so there is no way we can know. I'm suspicious of such arguments, it looks like desperation. Adoptive parents really aren't that similar. As for the data, fair go mate, I don't have it all on hand, but i'll see what I can do.

>>4847826
I may have been glib in my response, but understand that I'm all on my ideaological lonesome ITT, and there's lots of you, so give me some time. Read the above posts, it may serve as a response.

>> No.4847820 [View]

KK now that im done typing i'll attempt to deal with replies.

>>4847787

The experiment indicated in the post your replying to didnt even look at twins separated at birth. It was a standard twinning experiment.

>>4847812
By definition, data is not an "anecdote".

>> No.4847808 [View]

>>4847796
So if identical twins raise apart have an average variance of 6 points, and those raised together show an average variance of 4 points, presto, you've found an environmental effect. The experiment was done, and the results are unequivocal. No matter how many twin pairs you analysed, the results are the same, the variance in twins raise together is the same as the variance in twin pairs raise apart. It's five points no matter what. When I was first confronted with this data, I didn't want to believe it. But data is data, it doesnt care what you think. It just. The above post summarise why I don't believe in an environmental effect of IQ.

>> No.4847796 [View]

>>4847785
It's impossible to overstate the absolute smackdown this places on environmental or socioeconomic theories of IQ. However it is not the whole story. Identical twins tend to share similar environments, hence this should throw the results out. Maybe genetics really didn't have that much of an impact. This was tested by comparing identical twins raised together cf those raised apart. The thinking goes like this- identical twins raise together share similar home environments, hence they should show less variance in IQ score cf twins raised apart.

>> No.4847785 [View]

>>4847771
The problem with these experiments was, as I alluded to early, is that they cant differentiate environmental from genetic influences on IQ. Smart parents will have smart kids either because they pass on smart genes or because they tend to produce "smart environments" and the experiments can't tell which cause was correct. Hence, we tested the average variance in IQ scores between identical twin pairs, i.e., we tested a bunch of identical twins, minused their IQ scores from each other, and took the average. On average, the difference turns out to be about 5 points. Note the stark difference from above, where an individual with an average IQ of 100 could expect to be within 30 points of any random member of the population, an average twin can expect to be within 5 points of his identical twin!!

>> No.4847777 [View]

>>4847775
please wait until i finish typing up man, more to come.

>> No.4847771 [View]

>>4847764
It turned out that IQ was a normally distributed random variable, that is, the frequency of a particular IQ score within the population could be predicted from the Gaussian or Normal curve. In a normal curve, 95% of the population is within 1.96 standard deviations of the mean, in this case 100. The standard deviation of IQ scores is 15 (set that way), so 95% of the population fits within the range IQ 70-130. Many experiments were done on things that correlated with high IQ, and we found that wealthy people and educated people tend to have high IQ's (surprise!). Of course, correlation is not causation, but it was reasonable to assume that education causes IQ to increase.

>> No.4847764 [View]

The modern conception of IQ grew out of early work by Binet and further developed by Spearmann that showed success on a particular kind of cognitive test or puzzle tended to predict success on either kinds of cognitive test; i.e., cognitive perfromace is is correlated. Amongst other things, this allows us to dispose of the multiple intelligences arguments that seem to pop up now and then over the years. One of the other things it allows us to do is to summarise a persons total cognitive potential by subjecting him to a gamut of tests and taking his average across all performance. We call this an IQ test. When the tests were developed in Europe and America, the average perfromance was arbitrarily set at an IQ of 100 for reasons of simplicity.

>> No.4847744 [View]

>>4847727
I don't, thats why I said tend. I'm working on another post, it may take a little while, please be patient.

>> No.4847716 [View]

>>4847707
>I would think that his extremely authoritarian views would classify him as in the right wing, but I'm not exactly a political scientist
Stalin not left wing? lolwhut?

>I'd like to know about this study you mentioned earlier that confirmed races having distinctly different IQs "... after being modified for race".
I guess my question would really be, how do you discount the environmental factor (or prove it to be a non-factor)?

The study wasn't racial. Good luck getting funding for IQ research that even looks at race. I'll try and make it simple though, next post. Just give me a few minutes, gotta grab something to eat as well.

Navigation
View posts[+24][+48][+96]